I personally have never been in a group that felt that they had to follow every single rule in 3.5 to the letter, and that is the case for many people. Many people and DMs learned quickly what rules were essential and what rules could be safely ignored. The difference is that for the first time, 3.0 and 3.5 provided a written down safety net for new players and new DMs. While many older players felt constrained by this, just as many simply learned the basic structure and proceeded to deal with only the rules pertaining to the part of the structure they were using. 4E was marketed as a "simpler" game, but in truth, the system neither simpler nor more complex than anything that came before it. It just goes out of its way to hide the complexity behind the mechanics. Someone just picking up a 4E core book with no prior RPG experience is going to have to pre create everything as much as they would in 3.5 due to the fact that they have to figure out the underlying, unwritten assumptions that went into the design.
I disagree - they are just going to play without having figured out such underlying assumptions. There is going to be a dungeon and their characters are going to go in it and kill stuff. At this particularly basic level 4E is a simpler more straightforward system.
Sure there is a kind of advanced level where you begin to figure out underlying philosophies and then fine tune your use of the system to take advantage of the things that 4E is good at while minimizing that which it is not and much of this can be pretty subtle but for first time players - they really are playing the proverbial miniatures wargame and they'll probably have lots of fun with that. The deeper parts of the system will wait for them to discover that there is more to D&D then killing things and taking their stuff - and when they do finally figure that out 4E has some pretty elegant mechanics to back up such play.
A lot of players used to 3.5 who tried 4E found the lack of that safety net led to a more unpredictable experience. Instead of debating rule specifics, players just get to play 20 questions with the DM. 3.5 drew in a much larger crowd precisely because 3.x moved away from the 20 questions model...
By the time the players begin to realize that there are 20 questions to ask the DM is figuring out the basics of how to run skill checks and such and the initial answers here are not that hard. Pick a difficulty level (whether the DM picks good difficulty levels is another matter) but this is much easier then searching the books for a specific answer. Those are some big books and they are very intimidating. Trying to find the specific answer can be a tough task - 3.0 was specifically designed to be a game that rewarded skill mastery and newbs don't have such mastery.
4E power proliferation is impressive but its still a lot of sessions before you really begin to have to handle that. 1st level characters have their at wills plus an encounter and a daily power. If they are stuck in cards its super intuitive for players that have not played an RPG because most people understand the idea of playing cards from other games.
I've introduced newbs into both 3.5 and 4E and the 4E experience was far and away easier. In particular you don't need to remember much of anything to play 4E. Its on the cards or your character sheet and 4E is particular in making sure that almost all the basic aspects of the game are in front of the players and very clear. I've got a thread around here about my experience putting a group of 4E newbs through a conversion of Whispering Cairn (best introductory module I've ever seen btw - but the DM does have to be a skilled player to run it even if the players are not).
The hardest thing my players found to master was the dice - dice are really, really, tough. They come with all these sides and and your supposed to roll different ones at different times and they all look really weird and its easy to mix them up. Seriously - a fair number of sessions after they had figured out how to play their power cards and use their skills they where still picking up the wrong dice. I had to watch them like a hawk or they would be making their to hit rolls with d12s.
Yes, for some reason, the different types of dice seems to be a real barrier to new players. That is why I like systems like GURPS, where you have one set of 3 six siders and you are ready to go.
I find the idea that 3e is "simpler" then 4e to be utterly untrue.
Let's look at the Fighter.
At his heart, he's very simple. He gets feats and, well, just feats. You leveled? Choose your feat and your done. Now go back to full attacking.
Simple, right?
Well, no.
There's traps in feat design - intentional ones at that. Fighters are easily more complex then wizards for the same reason sorcerers are. If you choose a bad feat, guess what? That's it. That feat is gone. You lost the game-within-the-game that is 3e game mastery. Fighters if anything require incredible amounts of long term planning if you want to stay good throughout all the levels, far more then wizards - who can always change their spells - do.
4e rewards system mastery but doesn't require it, and it rewards it by making the group good. At your best - you're very best - you are very good at the job you do, which means the entire team is better. A super de duper optimized leader? Makes the whole party be incredibly awesome. A really sweet controller makes the enemy into dunces. And a way good defender just means the team can watch as he screams "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" Only the striker is selfish in their optimization.
Consequently, if you are bad at what you are doing, not only are most things retrainable, but you still contribute to the group. A bad defender doesn't take as many hits as he otherwise could, or can't handle the hits as well, but is still taking those hits.
3e is requires it - and rewards it abnormally. CoDZilla anyone? Someone really good at system mastery can make the rules cry and take over the entire group. Likewise, someone very poor at it can swiftly find themselves utterly useless.
Even worse, system mastery in 3e starts when you pick your class. Picked a monk or a soulknife or a samurai? Welp, that's it for you!
So yeah, while 4e and 3e are both complex, I think the utter nightmare that is 3e system mastery takes the cake.
Along the same lines as Prof, but trying to avoid the idea of feat tax and optimization discussions derailing the thread.
I also disagree that 3.X is easier for new players for certain.
In editions 1-3 if I had a new player to the game, I would make them a Human Fighter. That way they could learn the basics of combat, and no racial abilities to deal with. Now, thanks to 4E, if a new player wants to be a wizard, or a paladin, or a warlord they are no harder to learn than any other class or any other race.
Like previously mentioned, thanks to the powers system, all the keywords for their powers are right there, and can be found easily in the book.
Of course Essentials changes that somewhat. A thief and a slayer fighter for instance are easier to run (mechanically) than a wizard or a cleric, which is similar to 3E. in fact if you look at the pregens for the new Encounters Season you will notice that the characters have ratings in terms of how difficult they are to run. I believe the thief has the lowest rating (as in it is the most simple to run), and I think the warpriest had the highest.
Along the same lines as Prof, but trying to avoid the idea of feat tax and optimization discussions derailing the thread.
I also disagree that 3.X is easier for new players for certain.
In editions 1-3 if I had a new player to the game, I would make them a Human Fighter. That way they could learn the basics of combat, and no racial abilities to deal with. Now, thanks to 4E, if a new player wants to be a wizard, or a paladin, or a warlord they are no harder to learn than any other class or any other race.
Like previously mentioned, thanks to the powers system, all the keywords for their powers are right there, and can be found easily in the book.
The thing with a human fighter in 3.5, you can literally hand players a single, one sided sheet of paper, a d20, appropriate damage dice, and percentage dice, and that is all they need. No need for cards, books, or even understanding of what the numbers truly mean. It gets more complex fairly quickly, but for that first session, they literally have to have no understanding or skill beyond adding the number written under "to hit" to the d20. In 4E, you still have to explain powers before the player can functionally do anything. I am not saying that 3.5 is easier, but that 4E isn't really simpler either; the level of complexity at the different stages of learning is different, but the overall complexity is still the same.
Also, 4E goes to great pains to make simplicity, or at least the illusion of simplicity, a major goal. While I doubt few people would seriously regularly advocate complexity for complexity's sake, I have never understood why people are willing to accept the other extreme, which is just as problematic. Sometimes some level of complexity is required even if it means the learning curve is a touch higher. Pushing simplicity to the extreme means that when something complex does come up, the ability to handle it smoothly is severely hindered because one is simply left hanging with nothing to guide them.
The big thing that I am getting from all of these posts is that none of this is a problem for an experienced DM. That is great except for the many times you don't have such a DM, and can be problematic when new players often give the game one game session to determine their ultimate reaction. 3.5 may not have been particularly easy for the new player to immediately fully grasp, but they were able to figure that out pretty quickly after one game session, and generally were prepared to deal with the complexity when it did come up.
With 4E, they work hard to establish a facade of simplicity that can create very upset players when they realize that it is not as simple as the initial experience and expectations set it up to be. In short, they may be more willing to give the game a second or third session, but retention after the first level or two becomes an issue, especially if they experience multiple DMs of varying quality in that short time frame.
With 3.x, most of the players who were willing to the game a second session understood that certain facets were more challenging than others, and thus less likely to quit out of frustration when they hit those facets, many of which could be ignored. If you aren't interested in the complexity of the wizard, don't play it. The fighter, for all that feat selection is critical, has most of its complexity in the leveling up process, not at the table in actual play. Getting help for the stuff that happens between sessions shouldn't be hard in a good group, so it is possible, if not wise, to simply show up and roll the numbers someone else calculated for most, if not all, of the fighter progression. In my current groups, there is at least one such person in over half of them.
DMing 3.5 can be a challenge, especially at higher levels, but that's where being able to turn experienced players into assistants comes in. If a person is taking up too much table time, find ways to work that to your advantage. Use it to highlight common tricks and tactics for newer players that they may not know about yet, or use that player to draw out the other more quiet players. Difficulties with group dynamics can be eased by the presence of such players and the wide rule base if need be. In 4E, because so much is laid on the DM, group dynamics becomes something that absolutely has to be firmly established immediately at the start of the game, if not sooner. There is simply little or nothing there to make dealing with it later on possible without some kind of outside influence or extreme measures. Because the DM/Player lines are so clearly drawn, compromise can be very hard if two strong personalities get into it.
To try to clarify my thoughts from the above post. There are generally two main areas people talk about when discussing what they like or dislike about DnD: rules and group dynamics. To help illustrate how 3.5 and 4E interact with each of these areas, I will draw on my experiences playing Living Greyhawk, LFR, and a variety of other systems with the same group of DMs and players. As is to be expected in such groups, there were people I got along with well and people that I didn't.
Because 3.5 was more complex on the rules side, the group dynamics of sitting down at random tables with random DMs, while still very important, could be overcome by the presence of the rule heavy environment moderating personal feelings to a managable level. Even if I didn't care for the DM or one of the other players, I could still almost always find something positive in every module I played, even if there were just as many frustrating or irritating portions in that same time period.
LFR, and other rules light systems, were a completely different scenario. If the group dynamics were off from the start, it was often extremely hard to remain cheerful and upbeat long enough to get any enjoyment out of them. This isn't to say that all sessions were bad, as there were some really, really fun sessions when the combination of DM, players, and module fit perfectly. But the ones that involved personality conflicts or differing points of view from two or more strong willed people, which in that group was most of them at some point in the session, would often completely ruin the experience for one or more people at the table, especially if one of the people involved in the clash was the DM.
In short, 3.5 started out requiring people to know the rules, but gave the group time to learn to adjust to each other as long as the starting personalities weren't already at war with each other. 4E starts out requiring you to be able to get along with everyone else at the table, regardless of what mood you or they might be in, and that everyone is in general agreement of what is acceptable and proper behavior at the table from the beginning, but gives new people time to deal with the ever increasing rules.
|
All very good points, DM, and they reinforce what I am trying to say. Different people will see different mechanics as easier, harder, or "better" based on a wide variety of factors, so ultimately 3.5 and 4E are simply different, not easier or harder or more "fun" than the other overall. Which system is seen as "better" is likely going to depend heavily on the group or groups that any given individual finds themselves in and what precisely they are looking for in a system. Each system can emulate the other, but they are not designed at their cores to do the same thing.
Very well said - 3.5 and 4e are different games and I guess that is why I like playing them both :)
I had to watch them like a hawk or they would be making their to hit rolls with d12s.
Even though I have been roleplaying for well over 20 years now I still occassionally find myself rolling a d12 for an attack roll, luckily I am the GM so it goes in the players' favour :)
In short, 3.5 started out requiring people to know the rules, but gave the group time to learn to adjust to each other as long as the starting personalities weren't already at war with each other. 4E starts out requiring you to be able to get along with everyone else at the table, regardless of what mood you or they might be in, and that everyone is in general agreement of what is acceptable and proper behavior at the table from the beginning, but gives new people time to deal with the ever increasing rules.
What? Seriously I am completely losing you now. Are you saying that somehow 3.5 can magically encourage people to get on in real life? How?
Agreeing on what is acceptable behaviour up front is IMHO as important in 3.5 as it is in 4e - a player can still be a dick in 3.5 as much as 4e. What mechanics or rules are you seeing 3.5 having that helps group dynamics and determining acceptable behaviour?
Agreeing on what is acceptable behaviour up front is IMHO as important in 3.5 as it is in 4e - a player can still be a dick in 3.5 as much as 4e. What mechanics or rules are you seeing 3.5 having that helps group dynamics and determining acceptable behavior?
It isn't so much that 3.5 encourages better behavior as much as it provides something to fall back on long enough to resolve the initially small conflicts before they become game breakers. In 4E, the DM can resolve small things between players, but if the DM is involved in the fray directly, which is pretty common, there really isn't much a player can do other than walk away for at least a short time if all of the involved parties are being stubborn, also a pretty common occurrence. In 3.5, while this is still the end result of major blowups, a lot of minor skirmishes between player and DM can be fairly easily arbitrated by the other players with the help of the written rules common to all. This isn't nearly as easy when the DM is given a much larger chunk of the overall power than the players and the DM is part of the problem.
|
|
It isn't so much that 3.5 encourages better behavior as much as it provides something to fall back on long enough to resolve the initially small conflicts before they become game breakers.
ah, so because NPCs and PCs "have to" abide by the same rules in 3.5, and 3.5 has extensive rules for "everything" rules debates can be fairly clear cut (ignoring RAI issues) - whereas in 4e because the DM has different rules for monsters etc and can set variable DCs for "stunts" (DMG p42) then players cannot rely on rule lawyering as much and therefore have to have more trust that the GM will run a fair game.
Is that what you're getting at? If so I can kind of agree, but TBH I would want that trust in the GM whatever game I am playing and I tend not to rules lawyer too much anyway, going with what the GM says even if I know it to be wrong (I may point it out to alert the GM to the fact, but I don't argue the point).
Of course having a player who constantly tries to pickpocket every NPC in sight causing disruptions to the game is going to be able to do that in either 3.5 or 4e, so in those kinds of issues, rules systems don't matter.
It isn't so much that 3.5 encourages better behavior as much as it provides something to fall back on long enough to resolve the initially small conflicts before they become game breakers.ah, so because NPCs and PCs "have to" abide by the same rules in 3.5, and 3.5 has extensive rules for "everything" rules debates can be fairly clear cut (ignoring RAI issues) - whereas in 4e because the DM has different rules for monsters etc and can set variable DCs for "stunts" (DMG p42) then players cannot rely on rule lawyering as much and therefore have to have more trust that the GM will run a fair game.
Is that what you're getting at? If so I can kind of agree, but TBH I would want that trust in the GM whatever game I am playing and I tend not to rules lawyer too much anyway, going with what the GM says even if I know it to be wrong (I may point it out to alert the GM to the fact, but I don't argue the point).
Of course having a player who constantly tries to pickpocket every NPC in sight causing disruptions to the game is going to be able to do that in either 3.5 or 4e, so in those kinds of issues, rules systems don't matter.
It's more that a stubborn DM can be dealt with in ways that allow a 3.5 game to still function and continue, if not thrive, at least in the short term, whereas in 4E, a stubborn DM can really only be dealt with one way, walking away from the table and hoping that the issue can be resolved when both heads have had time to cool down. Players like the one in your last paragraph are going to be a problem irregardless, but 3.5 has a little more wiggle room when it comes to the occasional hiccup that is bound to come up every so often. I agree that being able to trust a DM is important for both systems, but I have played with enough DMs, and to be fair, players, that have earned a certain level of distrust for a wide variety of reasons that unfortunately it is hard for me to be rely just on a single person's personal judgment. I am sure that my experiences color my views of rules light systems, but I am also sure that unfortunately I am not the only one out there to have had such negative experiences.
Although I read claims that having the rules for player generation and monster generation being the same has a major influence on the game, I would disagree. As long as there are rules for player generation and monster generation, then the player still has to trust the DM, and vice versa. As long as there are rules, anyone can buy the appropriate books to look something up.
There has to be trust in regards to following the rules, or what you have is each player double checking other players actions, or the DM, because now everyone has a right to question anything. I would hate to be in that game.
If knowing the rules gives you some level of comfort, then please read up on them. So if you played 3.5, then you will have to spend time to learn and play 4E. Had I read this discussion after my initial attempts at 4E, I may have been on the other side of the fence in regards to the arguments made. But now that I have played it for over 2 years, you have my present stance.
As to the game being any easier with 4E versus 3.5, it is my experience that 3.5 melee types were easier to explain, while most beginners had bigger problems with any type of caster. 4E takes the middle ground, by making the mechanics the same for both. So the initial learning curve for learning the fighter may be a little higher, but once you learn one class, you have learned them all.
As to presenting powers in a card format, I hate it. I had better traction just listing the powers on a character sheet in plain text.
If knowing the rules gives you some level of comfort, then please read up on them. So if you played 3.5, then you will have to spend time to learn and play 4E. Had I read this discussion after my initial attempts at 4E, I may have been on the other side of the fence in regards to the arguments made. But now that I have played it for over 2 years, you have my present stance.
Unfortunately to read the rules, I either have to buy books, which I don't have the money to even begin thinking about, or put my trust in a company that, quite frankly, I don't really trust to not pull another PR/Support blunder like they have multiple times so far in the 4E life cycle. Putting all of the DDI updates and rules information where they are only online and entirely dependent on the whims of WoTC to access, is not a winning combination when WoTC itself is the main source of distrust with so many people. I would actually like to get the essentials books, but simply don't have the cash right now, and spending money on a subscription to get only temporary access to the character builder and rules compendium is not something I am interested in when as others have noted on the thread about Mike Mearls' columns, I can find Pathfinder's rules for free and in many locations not dependent on Paizo approval. I know I brought up WoTC's marketing and support again, but it is a big barrier for a lot of people, myself included, a barrier that didn't exist with 3.5 and still doesn't exist for Pathfinder.
Fair enough, I thought it was a huge mistake on how they transitioned to the web based DDI, but I doubt you will see WOTC or more importantly Hasbro, go back to releasing the entire rule set, even for a nominal fee. I guess they will have to live with that decision, in regards to peoples expectations and the OGL. I don't fault any company for protecting their intellectual property. The content in 3.5 was very prone to being pirated when released in an eletronic format like PDF files.
I know alot of people are against tools like DDI, but if technology is used correctly, it does save time and money. You just have to weight that cost versus your time and effort needed to play.
Perhaps WOTC will actually attempt to change their focus to writing adventures, revamping RPGA, etc. to highlight how those rules should be used, but every indication given so far does not support that idea.
I didn't have a problem with DDI or the character builder until they made it entirely web based. The fact that I would have to export even basic character information to another program to save it on my computer is a deal breaker for me. Instead of making the character builder online only, they should have made the basic character builder have only the core books and the essential books. Anything beyond that would require extra money to download the data. It still would have been protected, WoTC still would have got their money, and players would actually be able to have some control over when and where they accessed the information they had bought. I can understand wanting to control piracy, but WoTC went too far the other way in trying to do so.
|
|
It's more that a stubborn DM can be dealt with in ways that allow a 3.5 game to still function and continue, if not thrive, at least in the short term, whereas in 4E, a stubborn DM can really only be dealt with one way, walking away from the table and hoping that the issue can be resolved when both heads have had time to cool down.
What sort of scenarios are you envisaging where 3.5 can help a game comntinue with a stubborn GM but where 4e would not? If you get a stubborn GM then you're pretty much stuck - no matter what rule you point out as a player if a GM says "No, I interpret it this way" or "No, it that won't work in this situation" (even if they are wrong) there is not much that player can do other than accept the GM's decision or walk away as you described. I am really struggling to see what 3.5 gives that 4e doesn't in this sort of scenario.
Unfortunately to read the rules, I either have to buy books, which I don't have the money to even begin thinking about
Are you saying that you have not read the 4e rules? Or are you talking hypothetically? No offence, but your answer will colour my perceptions of your comments on 4e.
What sort of scenarios are you envisaging where 3.5 can help a game comntinue with a stubborn GM but where 4e would not? If you get a stubborn GM then you're pretty much stuck - no matter what rule you point out as a player if a GM says "No, I interpret it this way" or "No, it that won't work in this situation" (even if they are wrong) there is not much that player can do other than accept the GM's decision or walk away as you described. I am really struggling to see what 3.5 gives that 4e doesn't in this sort of scenario.
In 3.5, my personal experience at least was that the DM was a lot less likely to take a high and mighty position because they generally knew that the players had at least some support from the written rules, meaning that even if they made a snap decision to keep the game moving, most acknowledged that after the game, the discussion could very well be continued and the decision be adjusted for future scenarios where that ruling could come up.
Are you saying that you have not read the 4e rules? Or are you talking hypothetically? No offence, but your answer will colour my perceptions of your comments on 4e.
I have not had the opportunity to read most of supplements people are mentioning. I have the original PHB, the PHB II, the DMG, and first monster manual, so I am familiar with the original structure, but not how things may have changed over time, aside from what people commented on when essentials was released. I don't really get the impression from those threads that the core design has really changed, even with the essentials classes being closer to the 3.5 classes than the original 4E classes were.
|
|
In 3.5, my personal experience at least was that the DM was a lot less likely to take a high and mighty position because they generally knew that the players had at least some support from the written rules, meaning that even if they made a snap decision to keep the game moving, most acknowledged that after the game, the discussion could very well be continued and the decision be adjusted for future scenarios where that ruling could come up.
Fair enough, I am not sure I have noticed that in either game, but obviously my experiences differ. If anything where there wasn't a rule for something in 4e I would be willing to give the GM more slack in making a ruling and thus avoid more arguments - as I said different experiences.
I have not had the opportunity to read most of supplements people are mentioning. I have the original PHB, the PHB II, the DMG, and first monster manual, so I am familiar with the original structure,
That is more than enough to discuss 4e IMHO. I haven't got any of the Essentials line, have only read PHB, DMG & MM cover to cover and just dipped into DMG2 and PHB2 & 3 for the classes the players use. I have printed out the errata for the books I own, but to be honest about the only bit I use consistently is the new Aid Another rule where you can actually hinder someone :) I do have the Deluxe core books though (both hardcopy and PDF) and so they include some of the first errata.
I haven't even updated my character builder for ages (I didn't want their new Magic Missile) and so even the PC powers are probably original style rather than Essentialised.
It's comforting to see that not everyone insists on using every single update. Maybe once I finish extracting myself from my current job, and find a new job, I will have energy and time to try a 4E pbp. Until then, thank you for the excellent discussion; I know I learned a lot, and I hope you did as well.
|
|
It's comforting to see that not everyone insists on using every single update.
As with any game I play, I largelt use hardcopy only at the table and don't like to cross-reference with errata to see if anything has changed - only if something actually comes up as a problem do I look toward the errata.
If errata is ever incorporated into new printing of the rule book I may at some point buy another copy to get that errata (its the reason I bought the Deluxe core books for D&D 4e) however with 4e they aren't re-printing the PHB and Essentials are not exactly the same books so I am not buying those.
I may use more errata than I realise where that errata applies to powers as I have the character builder, but even that I stopped updating to prevent getting the Magic Missile change.
Until then, thank you for the excellent discussion; I know I learned a lot, and I hope you did as well.
Thanks to you too, I did indeed learn something, I realised 4e is a more focused game than 3.5 and I was also reminded of the Affiliation rules in PHB2 for 3.5 that I may read again.
These days 4E is my system of preference (when it comes to fantasy gaming). However, I think it would be a crappy system to try to run or play in a pbp game in. If I was going to do pbp, I'd take 3E over 4E any day.
I hear that a there's been more progress made with their whole digital table top initiative. Hopefully we'll see it in action sometime this year. If that finally arrives then I might consider trying it via the internet.
It's comforting to see that not everyone insists on using every single update. Maybe once I finish extracting myself from my current job, and find a new job, I will have energy and time to try a 4E pbp. Until then, thank you for the excellent discussion; I know I learned a lot, and I hope you did as well.
Aside from already established games, pbp is the only way I am going to be playing anything from now into the foreseable future.
P.H.
You should go to the pbp section of the board and read some of the 4E campaigns. I agree in regards to the initial assumption that 4E would be hard to run, just because the combat is very dynamic. But multiple campaigns seem to be doing fine. I think with any game, there is going to be a big jump in regards to knowing what will or will not work with pbp. That is one of the reasons I never stepped up to the plate to run my own, but more importantly the time I would have to dedicate to it.
Don't knock it, til you've tried it. I've been running very successful pbps in 4e and found it a quantum leap in ease of running in and playing from 3.x.
As a very novice DM I started out tentatively with a pbp under 4e over two and a half years ago. It's still going. Started another about six months later. I'm now running five. While it's true I'm a little obsessive, I do have other things I need to do in my life apart from update maps and roll for monsters, so you can take my word for it that 4e works a treat in pbp.
That said, I've never tried to run anything under any other system, so I don't have any basis for comparison. My only thought really, is that pbp is a special animal. The time frame is different and it is well worth looking at any adventure in detail before you start and deciding what you will be leaving out. You do have to be extremely proactive as well. Half my enormous post count is me saying "So, gang, what is your cunning plan? First two to post make the decision."
You do have to be extremely proactive as well. Half my enormous post count is me saying "So, gang, what is your cunning plan? First two to post make the decision."
I'm noticing that that well. The group for the game I'm running on this board is really good about it, and I tend to be the slow one as I am still struggling with the maps, but the one I did on another board was a challenge at times to keep things going.
I hear that a there's been more progress made with their whole digital table top initiative. Hopefully we'll see it in action sometime this year. If that finally arrives then I might consider trying it via the internet.
Well, I mean, it has arrived in the sense that a (very functional) private beta is currently being conducted. I've messed around with it. Tiles are cool, voice fonts are cool, compendium/monster builder/character builder integration is/will be so cool, etc.
WotC's been rolling out new features and widening the scope of the beta fairly rapidly. I believe all subscribers are set to have access to it this month.
How much can you build with the digital tiles relative to a battle map? Can you make pretty much any map you want? My problem with tiles is that I've always found them limiting. I can pretty much sketch out anything on a battle map, but not so with tiles. However with computer generated tiles you could easily produce millions more combinations of maps than you could with physical tiles, so I could see this having the potential to work well, but I'm still concerned I'll be limited as to what maps I can throw together. I think a digital battlemap with a sketching type feature would be great.
I hear that a there's been more progress made with their whole digital table top initiative. Hopefully we'll see it in action sometime this year. If that finally arrives then I might consider trying it via the internet.Well, I mean, it has arrived in the sense that a (very functional) private beta is currently being conducted. I've messed around with it. Tiles are cool, voice fonts are cool, compendium/monster builder/character builder integration is/will be so cool, etc.
WotC's been rolling out new features and widening the scope of the beta fairly rapidly. I believe all subscribers are set to have access to it this month.
How so? I would think that all the forced movement, marks, interrupt actions etc... would make combat a real slog in a pbp. Maybe I'll check out a couple of the games and see how they tried to get around that issue.
Don't knock it, til you've tried it. I've been running very successful pbps in 4e and found it a quantum leap in ease of running in and playing from 3.x.
|
Er, maps?
In my experience, 3e has the same mapping requirements as 4e, which are largely resolved in PbP by using coordinates (like a spreadsheet - "Ragnar is in B4 and charges to C8"). So the only real difference is that you have a bit more movement in 4e, but it is perfectly easy to accommodate that. Frankly, google.docs has been a good recent innovation for me so I can share any old map, so long as it translates into squares. For example, a ruined cathedral square in the Mournland, complete with undead and crevasse.
Interrupts are maybe a bit trickier, but assuming people are keen enough to check regularly it isn't that big a deal to keep in time reasonably closely. And you can backtrack if necessary, but it hasn't been so fat. Interrupts are fairly uncommon, so you should know which characters have them and then invite them to interrupt if the situation arises.
I think the "ease" comes from the general ease of preparing for a 4e game as opposed to a 3e game, if you have the applications. Even if you don't, monsters come in different flavours so you aren't constantly adding levels or templates to create an encounter.
...and don't even get me started on the abomination that is the Delve format.
Well you'll be happy to note (as am I) that they just pronounced the format dead...well not 100% dead but the idea at the core of the Delve format - the two page spread for combat encounters will now only be used for very specific encounters for which it is suited. It'll be interesting to see what they have come up with from this point forward.
Forgive me if this has already been answered (I haven't read the past 6 pages) but wasn't the "Delve" format even used in v3.5 adventures?
From what I remember playing and running Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave and Shadowdale: Scouring of the Land adventures, it was very similar to what your referring to Delve-style. Same with the Return to Castle Ravenloft adventure.
If that's the case, I'm very pleased they're going to change this. It's not so much the problem with the encounters themselves, just that it's spaced in the adventure's weirdly. Like reading the rooms and the plot then having to go back and forth between the battles and the adventure was a hassle.
It was tested out in the late 3.5 era. Several Eberron adventures used it as well. I for one am glad to see its use being limited. I could see how for certain types of encounters it would work quite well, but as a general format, it was not good.
|
|
It was tested out in the late 3.5 era. Several Eberron adventures used it as well. I for one am glad to see its use being limited. I could see how for certain types of encounters it would work quite well, but as a general format, it was not good.
THe Dawn of Defiance scenarios for Star Wars Saga Edition also did this.
I believe 3.5's Expedition to Castle Ravenloft was the first major product to use the format though it had already been used in various Delves at cons and such.
Its actually a really good format for a con where keeping the DM on top of everything is job #1 and dynamic story is not anywhere in the job description at all.